Jharkhand High Court
Dhana Bedya Son Of Late Hussaini Bedya vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 11 March, 2025
Author: R. Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.283 of 1998(R)
Dhana Bedya son of Late Hussaini Bedya, resident of
village Ghutuwa, P.S. Patratu (Barkakana), District Hazaribag.
---- Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ----- Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P
-------
JUDGMENT
Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, learned Amicus
Curiae appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Priya Shrestha,
learned Spl.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
of conviction and sentence dated 14.09.1998 (sentence passed on
16.09.1998) passed by Shri Chandra Sen Choubey, learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribag in S.T. No. 21/1988,
whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C and has
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the
conviction under Section 302 I.P.C and rigorous imprisonment for
3 years for the conviction under Section 201 I.P.C. Both the
sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbayan of
Jituwa Bedia in which it has been stated that the skeletal remains
of a female was recovered from a well which was identified to be
that of Nuni Devi, the daughter of the informant. It has been stated
that Nuni Devi was married to Dhana Bedya (appellant) about 3
years back and she was staying in her matrimonial house. During
the month of 'Ashadh' there was a quarrel between Dhana Bedya
and Nuni Devi and Nuni Devi was subjected to assault. During last
Diwali the son-in-law of the informant had solemnized a second
marriage after which Nuni Devi was assaulted and ousted from
her matrimonial house. It has been stated that a Panchayati was
held and after the direction of the Panchayat, the daughter of the
informant started staying at her matrimonial house. It has been
alleged that on 6.3.1987 the son-in-law of the informant had come
to his house and disclosed that Nuni Devi is missing since
3.3.1987. On such information a search was conducted and in
course of search, a shepherd had disclosed that a foul smell is
coming from a well and thereafter the skeletal remains of Nuni
Devi was recovered.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Patratu
(Barkakana) P.S. Case No. 105 of 1987 was instituted against
Dhana Bedya. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was
submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was
committed to the court of sessions where it was registered as S.T.
No. 21/1988. Charge was framed against the accused under
Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C which was read over and explained to
him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 11
witnesses in support of its case.
5. P.W.1 Rajdev Bediya has proved his signature upon the
inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1. He has also
proved his signature on the seizure list of saree, blouse, petticoat,
bangles and dry leaves which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. He
has stated that the accused had solemnized a second marriage
after three years of his marriage to Nuni Devi and after such
marriage Nuni Devi was assaulted by the accused and sent to her
parents' house. When after 1-2 months Nuni Devi was not taken
to her matrimonial house by the accused, a Panchayati was held
after which the accused became ready to keep Nuni Devi and after
a few days Nuni Devi started residing at her matrimonial house.
He has stated that after a few days the accused informed the
parents of Nuni Devi that their daughter has fled away from her
matrimonial house. Before the dead body of Nuni Devi was
recovered, she was residing with the accused in her matrimonial
house.
In cross-examination he has deposed that there was
some flesh just below the right knee of the skeleton. The skeleton
was covered with saree and blouse. His statement was recorded by
the Police in which he had stated about the tumultuous
relationship between the accused and Nuni Devi, the holding of a
Panchayat, the undertaking by the accused to keep Nuni Devi with
him and the fleeing away of Nuni Devi from her matrimonial house
as disclosed by the accused. There was a sign of burn in the
skeletal remains of Nuni Devi which assisted in identifying Nuni
Devi.
6. P.W. 2, Kewal Bediya is the brother of Nuni Devi who
has stated that Nuni Devi stayed with Dhana Bedya in her
matrimonial house for three years after which Dhana Bedya
solemnised a second marriage and thereafter Nuni Devi was
subjected to torture and in the month of 'Ashadh' Dhana Bedya
after assaulting Nuni Devi had ousted her from her matrimonial
house. Thereafter a Panchayat was convened and Dhana Bedya
became ready to keep Nuni Devi and had accordingly taken her to
his house. After a few days Dhana Bedya went to the house of Nuni
Devi and asked about the whereabouts of Nuni Devi as Nuni Devi
had fled away from her matrimonial house. A search was
conducted for tracing out Nuni Devi but she could not be found
and on 26.03.1987 an old shepherd had disclosed that a foul smell
was coming out from a well situated nearby and when they
reached the well, they found a dead body inside. The matter was
thereafter informed to the Police outpost. In the morning the dead
body was taken out from the well. There was a sign of burn in the
right leg which helped identify the dead body to be that of Nuni
Devi.
In cross-examination he has deposed that the skeleton
was taken out with the help of a rope. There was some flesh in
both the legs below the knee.
7. P.W.3 Raghu Nath Tiwari has stated that in the evening
of 23.03.1987 he was in his house when Ram Kewal Bediya along
with 2-3 persons came to his house and disclosed that his sister-
in-law Nuni Devi is traceless for the last 20-22 days. Ram Kewal
had also disclosed that Dhana had solemnized a second marriage
as a result of which he did not have a good relation with Nuni Devi.
In the meantime, Godbeya had disclosed that the smell of a
decomposed dead body was emanating from the abandoned well
of the military at Ghutwa. He has stated that thereafter he, Ram
Kewal and others had gone to the police station and informed
about the incident to the Police after which the Police came and
found some dry leaves and pebbles in the well and a portion of
saree and petticoat were also seen. The well was dry. In the
morning the body was taken out which was identified to be that of
Nuni Devi by her parents, sister-in-law and others.
In cross-examination he has deposed that they had
reached the well at 8.00 p.m. and in the torchlight they had seen
saree, petticoat and flesh on the body.
8. P.W. 4 Ram Kewal Bediya is the brother-in-law of the
deceased who has stated that on 23.03.1987 he had gone to his
in-laws place when he came to know that Nuni Devi is missing for
the last 20-22 days. On the next day when he was going to Ghutwa
Basti, a shepherd had disclosed that a foul smell is coming from a
well nearby. When he, his father-in-law Jitan Bediya and brother-
in-law Kewal Bediya had gone near the well, they found a body
with saree and petticoat after which they had gone to the house of
Raghunath Tiwari. He had gone to the Police Station with Raghu
Nath Tiwari and on the next morning the dead body was taken out
from the well. He and Jitu Bediya had identified the dead body to
be that of Nuni Devi.
In cross examination he has deposed that it was Dhana
Bedya who had informed his in-laws about Nuni Devi having
become traceless. They had gone near the well at 10.00 p.m. and
the Inspector had seen the body and the wearing apparels with the
assistance of a torchlight.
9. P.W. 5 Dr. Ajit Kumar was posted as a Civil Assistant
Surgeon in Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh and on 26.03.1987 he had
conducted autopsy on the dead body of Nuni Devi and had found
the following:-
"Both upper limbs present scull with mandible present.
All ribs present vertebra column present. Pelvis
present. All the bones of lower limb and food present.
Bangles were present in left forearms. Sari wrapped
around to bones. There bones were of female due to
strut shorts pelvis swelled and height."
The cause of death could not be determined. The post-
mortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2.
In cross examination he has disclosed that the entire
skeleton was intact and there was no flesh.
10. P.W. 6, Prayag Bedia has stated that the dead body of
Nuni Devi had fully decomposed except for some flesh clinging to
the skeleton. The injury sustained by Nuni Devi on her leg in
childhood helped in identifying the dead body. He has proved his
signature in the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-
1/2. He has also proved his signature on the seizure list of saree,
blouse, bangles, etc. which has been marked as Exhibit-1/3.
In cross-examination he has deposed that there was
some flesh in both the legs of the skeletal remains of Nuni Devi.
11. P.W. 7, Ritwa Bedia is the uncle of Nuni Devi who has
stated that he and the others had taken out the body from the
well. The sign of injury on her right leg and her wearing apparels
helped in identifying the dead body as that of Nuni Devi. On the
3rd of the month, Dhana Bedya had informed that Nuni Devi had
fled away and on search she could not be traced out, but on 26th
the dead body was recovered from the well. Dhana Bedya had
solemnized a second marriage and used to torture Nuni Devi.
In cross examination, he has deposed that he had
stated before the Police that the injury on the leg of Nuni Devi and
her wearing apparels helped him identify the dead body to be that
of Nuni Devi.
12. P.W. 8, Jitu Bedia is the informant and the father of the
deceased who has stated about the solemnization of the marriage
of his daughter Nuni Devi with Dhana Bedya about 2-3 years back.
In the year 1987 Dhana Bedya had assaulted his daughter. Dhana
Bedya had married another lady because of which he committed
assault upon Nuni Devi. A Panchayati was held in which the
accused had undertaken to keep his daughter properly. He has
stated that on 03.03.1987 Dhana Bedya had informed him that
Nuni Devi is missing after which a search was made, but she could
not be traced out. He had gone in search of his daughter with
Kewal Bediya and Ram Kewal Bediya when on the way an aged
shepherd had informed him that a foul smell is coming from a well
situated at some distance. At this, when they went near the well,
they found a dead body covered with leaves. They had gone to the
house of Raghunath Tiwari and thereafter to the Police Station but
since it was night the Police had decided to take out the body in
the morning. In the morning the dead body was taken out which
had some flesh in some parts of the skeletal remains. The sign of
burning in her leg sustained during childhood enabled him to
identify the dead body as that of Nuni Devi. His statement was
recorded by the Police in which he had given his thumb
impression.
In cross-examination he has deposed that his daughter
never used to flee away from the house. The dead body could be
identified by looking at the face.
13. P.W. 9 Jirwa Devi is the sister-in-law of the deceased
who has stated about the dead body of Nuni Devi being taken out
from the well and she was identified due to the sign of burns on
her leg.
In cross examination she has deposed that the body
had decomposed and only the legs had some flesh.
14. P.W. 10 Gunjri Devi is the mother of the deceased who
has stated that the body of her daughter was taken out from a well
by the Police.
In cross examination she has stated that the dead body
was recovered in her presence. The skeletal remains only consisted
of bones and it did not have any flesh. There never was any sign
of burning on the leg of Nuni Devi.
15. P.W.11 Dilip Kumar has proved the Fardbayan,
endorsement on the Fardbayan and the formal F.I.R which have
been marked as Exhibit-3, 4 and 5 respectively.
16. The statement of the accused was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C in which he has denied his complicity in the
murder of Nuni Devi.
17. Mr. D. C. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted
that admittedly there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and
the chain of circumstances is also not complete in order to prove
the guilt of the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant had
gone in search of his wife to his in-laws place on 06.03.1987 and
had disclosed that Nuni Devi is missing since 03.03.1987. The
information given by the appellant to his in-law speaks about the
love and affection he had for his wife Nuni Devi and the arrow of
suspicion against the appellant fades into oblivion. It has further
been submitted that the evidence of the doctor (P.W.5) rules out
any definitive finding that the dead body was of Nuni Devi.
18. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Special P.P has submitted
that there are strong circumstantial evidence on record which
would categorically point out the role played by the appellant in
committing the murder of his wife.
19. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and have also perused the trial court records.
20. The precursor to the missing of Nuni Devi seems to be
of a bitterness which had crept up in the relationship between the
appellant and Nuni Devi; the primary reason being the
solemnization of another marriage by the appellant. The holding
of a Panchayat was an outcome of the torture and ouster of Nuni
Devi from her matrimonial house by the appellant and it seems
that the appellant had accepted before the Panchayat of properly
keeping Nuni Devi with him. The staying together of the appellant
and Nuni Devi did not last long and on 02.03.1987 she went
missing from her matrimonial house which information was given
to the in-laws of the appellant on 06.03.1987. It would, thus,
appear that for three days the appellant kept silent and he had
during the entire period never informed the Police. The attritional
relationship between the appellant and the deceased has been
highlighted by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.8. Even in his 313 Cr.P.C
statement the appellant has accepted the fact that he had
solemnized a second marriage during the subsistence of his earlier
marriage with Nuni Devi. There also does not seem to be any effort
initiated by the appellant to trace out Nuni Devi. P.W. 8 in his
evidence has deposed that Nuni Devi did not have the habit of
fleeing away from the house. It would also seem that no efforts
were made by the appellant to trace out his wife after she was
ousted and only on account of the pressure created by the
Panchayat he had reluctantly taken back Nuni Devi to his house.
The tumultuous relationship between the appellant and Nuni
Devi, the ouster of Nuni Devi from her matrimonial house, the
taking back of Nuni Devi due to decision of the Panchayat, her
disappearance after a few days of her return to her matrimonial
house, the delayed information of her disappearance supplied to
the parents-in-law by the appellant, absence of any efforts taken
by the appellant to trace out his wife and the recovery of the
remnants of Nuni Devi from an abandoned dry well covered with
leaves and pebbles are the chain of circumstances which are
complete and which unequivocally point to the involvement of the
appellant in committing the murder of Nuni Devi.
21. Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae has tried to impress
upon us that the dead body is not of Nuni Devi relying upon the
testimony of P.W.5, but the evidence of some of the prosecution
witnesses reveal that apart from the signs of burn on her right leg,
the wearing apparels draped around the skeleton was also one of
the features assisting in such identification.
22. On an overall conspectus of the case, we come to the
conclusion that the learned trial court through valid reasons has
convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section
302 / 201 I.P.C and having found no reasons to conclude
otherwise, we affirm the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 14.09.1998 (sentence passed on 16.09.1998)
passed by Shri Chandra Sen Choubey, learned Additional
Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribag in S.T. No. 21/1988 and
consequently we dismiss this appeal.
23. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance
rendered by Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae
and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services
Committee to extend the stipulated fees to Mr. Mishra within a
period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy
of this order.
24. The office is also directed to ensure that a copy of this
judgment is supplied to the Member Secretary, High Court Legal
Services Committee immediately and forthwith.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated: 11th March, 2025
Shamim/-
